From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,42490cad53ee37fa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr21.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: NOACE- End of the road for Ada? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.167.59.232 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com 1110859232 ST000 64.167.59.232 (Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:00:32 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:00:32 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: O@Y[R^[GZRRER_H]]RKB_UDAZZ\DPCPDLXUNNHLIWIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:00:32 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9425 Date: 2005-03-15T04:00:32+00:00 List-Id: "Jared" wrote in message news:S39Zd.1389$fO6.3528@news.uswest.net... > > Java, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this group, is basically C++ > with all the bad parts removed and with garbage collection added. Java is > comfortable to all the C people, because of its syntax, because of its > culture, and because it pretends to share the C++ idioms. > A strange argument, but a common one. Ada's syntax is not less comfortable than the syntax of the C family. In fact, I find the C family syntax rather annoying, not particularly intuitive, and full of contradictions and work-arounds. It seems that, once the industry gets used to doing things the hard way, the people in that industry come to believe that that is the natural way. I am reminded of old women in Southeast Asia who used to use short-handled brooms. They stooped over them day after day after day, and many of them, when introduced to long-handled brooms, continued to stoop over those brooms just as they had with short-handled brooms. You mentioned Ruby. Nice language. Not type-safe, but at least the curly braces are gone! Every time I confront someone in a decision-making capacity about their choice of C++ over Ada, and more recently Java over Ada, the answer comes down to, "Well, we agree that Ada is probably better for coding weapon systems, but we can find more trained C++ programmers than Ada programmers." Yes. The decision is made not on the basis of language quality. Rather it is, "We cannot find enough Ada programmers." Sometimes it is, "No one wants to program in Ada." I have not been able to bring myself to view these reasons as other than either deranged of stupid. Am I going to let a mechanic who has no experience with a torque wrench do serious work on my car just because I am having trouble finding one who does know how to use a torque wrench. Oh, yes. When I need open-heart surgery, I suppose any physician with a set of sharp scapels, and a modest knowledge of anesthisology and heart disease do the job. After all, it is too hard to find a good physician trained in using the right tools. My worry is that these contractors are building weapon systems using inferior tools. Ada is the torque wrench of programming languages. People's lives are at risk. I find it scary that the contractors are making decisions in favor of languages that are inherently featuring dangerous constructs, languages that require such care in their use that, on at least one major project, they have opted for such a "safe" subset that they have practically eliminated the reasons for using an object-oriented language in their restrictive rules. Perhaps expediency does not impact quality. Perhaps, also we won't know the answer to that question for many years, the length of time it takes to develop certain of our major weapon systems in progress. By then, those senior managers who have made the decisions will have retired, been promoted out of harm's way, or moved to some other job and accountability will have vanished with them. Ada has proven itself effective in building weapon systems. It has been shown to be excellent in safety-critical software. There is no good reason to ignore its benefits just to follow the hype of today's popular flavor. For managers to allow themselves to be intimidated by a lot of people who can't get over their need for curly braces is unconscionable. "The horror! The horror!" Richard Riehle